Cooperative Environmental Management

Law Offices
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP	Atlanta	Northern Virginia
	Boston Fort Lauderdale	Orlando Providence
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.	Jacksonville	San Francisco
Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20037-3202	Lakeland Melbourne	St Petersburg Tallahassee
202-955-3000 FAX 202-955-5564 www.hklaw.com	Mexico City Miami New York	Tampa Washington, DC West Palm Beach

May 23, 2001	ROBERT L. RHODES 202-202-457-5943
	Internet Address: rrhodes@hklaw.com

Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building (MC 1101A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Administrator Whitman:

 On behalf of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), I am pleased to forward the NACEPT Council's comments on the Agency's proposed Fiscal Year 2002 Enforcement Grant Program (see enclosure). The review was conducted by the Compliance Assistance Advisory Committee (CAAC), a subcommittee under the auspices of NACEPT.

 The CAAC was convened under NACEPT to provide assistance to EPA in the development of an annual EPA-wide compliance assistance plan that will outline agency priorities and commitments for compliance assistance activities.

 The CAAC recently had an opportunity to review a memorandum entitled "Discussions with States and Tribes Regarding Proposed FY 2002 Enforcement Grant Program," issued by Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (April 30, 2001). The memorandum referenced the inclusion of $25 million in the President's FY 2002 Budget for grants to state and tribal enforcement programs, and directed initiation of "a broad consultation process to solicit views about options and issues associated with the new program."

 The Council and I look forward to receiving your response and are available to participate in EPA's discussions with stakeholders relevant to the Enforcement Grant Program.

	Sincerely,
	Robert L. Rhodes, Jr. Chair, NACEPT

 

 

RLR: nct
Enclosure

cc:	Sylvia Lowrance, Assistant Administrator/OECA (Acting)
	Mike Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator/OECA (Acting) Bruce Weddle, Deputy Director, Office of Compliance James Edwards, Director/Compliance Assistance Division Richard Sustich, Co-Chair/CAAC JoAnn Berman, DFO/CAAC Gwen Whitt, DFO/NACEPT

---

Recommendations Regarding: Options
for Use of Funds by States and Tribes

     The memorandum described three potential options for the use of grant funds. Option 1 would allow use of funds to address particular environmental problems through assistance, incentives, inspection, and/or enforcement. Option 2 would allow use of funds for building capacity of state and tribal enforcement and compliance assurance programs. Option 3, would give states and tribes the choice of either problem-based or capacity-building approaches.

     Currently, the Federal government provides approximately $525 million annually to states and tribes to carry out delegated program activities. Additionally, $220 million is given to tribes for a variety of purposes. Of this, approximately $131 million is used for enforcement activities. Therefore, the FY 2002 Enforcement Grant Program will increase funding to states and tribes by less than 20 percent overall.

     In considering the three options cited above, EPA noted that, while Option 1 (Problem-based strategies) would be somewhat more difficult to administer because of the complexity in reviewing grant proposals, this option's focus on specific strategies and outcomes measurement would be more likely to produce environmental benefits than Options 2 and 3.

     Due to the potential for greater environmental benefits, the NACEPT recommends that EPA focus on problem-based strategies in selecting projects for funding under the subject program. Additionally, because this funding is supplemental to current funding for traditional enforcement activities, EPA should focus on projects that promote alternatives to traditional enforcement. Proposals that incorporate integrated strategies using a well-balanced combination of compliance assistance, inspections and enforcement should be preferred, particularly where compliance assistance promotes the diffusion of advanced pollution prevention practices in the regulated community.

     Options for Allocation of Funds:

     The memorandum described three potential options for allocation of funds through a competitive grant process. Option 1 would allocate funds to states and tribes proportionally based on population or other relevant factors. Option 2 would allocate a base share of funds to each approved project, with additional funding dispersed based on the relative merits of the approved projects. Option 3 would allocate funds on a tiered approach, with capacity-building projects being funded within one range and problem-based projects within a higher range.

     Again, because problem-based strategies have the greatest potential for environmental benefits, the NACEPT recommends that EPA allocate funds strictly on a competitive basis, considering the relative environmental benefits of each approved project.

WAS1 #976533 V1